1) Perverting the foot and mouth
vaccination plan [77]
During the height of the foot and mouth crisis, in mid-April
2001, the government had seemingly decided on a limited vaccination
policy for Cumbria and possibly Devon. The vaccination option could
have saved tens of thousands of animals from being needlessly slaughtered,
often under inhumane conditions. It could also have saved the taxpayer
hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation, culling, and burial
costs.
The major supermarkets and consumer associations had
given support to the vaccination programme. However, fierce lobbying
from the food industry forced a U-turn: both Peter Blackburn, the
then chief executive of Nestlé UK as well as president of the
FDF, and Lady Sylvia Jay, a former civil servant at the Department
for International Development and director general of the FDF, stubbornly
resisted the government’s vaccination programme.
In a letter written to Tony Blair, Blackburn explained
that the industry opposed vaccination because ‘we were very afraid
of the consequences on all meat and dairy exports’; he later
added that vaccination could have could have risked its exports of
powdered milk to developing countries. Yet the use of vaccinated milk
in food production was not at threat, since ‘the retailers and
food manufacturers had already said they would cope’ (Lord Haskins).
One might expect the FDF to be retrospectively ashamed
that their president, Peter Blackburn, ferociously lobbied against
vaccination when he was only protecting the interests of his own company,
Nestlé UK, who were concerned for the exports from just one
milk-producing factory. The FDF made a major contribution (along with
the National Farmer’s Union) in turning about the government’s
vaccination policy which could have saved Cumbrian farmers from the
nightmare of the culling policy.
Yet rather than be ashamed of this action, Sylvia Jay
of the FDF uses their involvement over the foot and mouth crisis as
an example of their power within government, boasting that ‘FDF’s
senior officers have frequent discussions with Ministers on a range
of issues and were consulted by the Prime Minister during the height
of the FMD crisis.’[78]
2) Lobbying against the labelling
of GM-ingredients in food
The FDF opposes the labelling of GM-foods. In a 1998/1999
memorandum to a government Select Committee, the FDF said that ‘we
do not believe that genetic modification per se presents any food
safety risk or that foods produced using GMOs represent a special
class of new foods, and … we believe they should be subject to
the same type of risk assessment as any other new food product and
its intended use, rather than its method of development.’[79]
Although the FDF claims that it is keen to support the
consumer’s wishes of having GM-free food, it is simultaneously
campaigning heavily against any further ‘tightening up’
of the labelling laws. As recently as September 2001, Sylvia Jay of
the FDF said:
‘As soon as it became clear that most consumers
did not want to eat food containing genetically modified ingredients,
UK food and drink manufacturers started to seek supplies of conventional
crops.’[80]
However, the more recent proposals by the European Commission
seem too much for the FDF to bear. At present, food sold in the EU
must be labelled as ‘GM’ if more than 1% of its ingredients
are genetically modified. The European Commission has now proposed
lowering this cut-off figure to 0.5%, including in the calculation
ingredients that are derived from GM sources, regardless of whether
they contain GM DNA or protein. For example, oil derived from GM-soya
or maize (which contains no DNA at all) would now be defined and labelled
as GM-oil. This move has been welcomed by those who oppose GM-food
production. Peter Riley of Friends of the Earth explains that the
current labelling laws are ‘far too weak and allow the biotech
industry to introduce GMOs into our food by stealth.’[81]
However, the FDF and FSA both slammed the recent proposal,
declaring it to be ‘ridiculous’, ‘open to fraud’,
and having ‘no bearing to reality’[82]. An FDF spokesperson
has spoken of their intention to lobby the Council of Ministers to
oppose the Commission’s proposal. Neville Craddock of the FDF
called it ‘unworkable’, even though the European Commission
responded by saying that the proposal was ‘far less complex than
you’re suggesting’[83].
Neville Craddock has been an industry employee most
of his working life; he is presently Group Regulatory and Environmental
Affairs Manager for Nestlé UK, as well as Chair of the Scientific
and Regulatory Affairs Committee of the FDF. Most interesting are
his links to the Food Standards Agency where he sits on the Advisory
Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP).
Valerie Saint (of the FDF and of Unilever) recently
sat on the government’s Clear Labelling Taskforce whose remit
is to ‘review the ease with which consumers are currently able
to obtain information of concern to them from food labels.’[84]
The taskforce concluded that consumers would not need to know the
GM-content of their food in order to make ‘informed purchase
decisions’, although it also warned food manufacturers of ‘other
statutory information’ which would have to be given by law, which
may include GM-content.
3) Protecting processed and unhealthy
food
On numerous occasions the FDF has defended companies
who produce food that is high in salts, fats, sugars, additives and
preservatives.
Unhealthy food
When a survey of 800 parents labelled foods such as Sunny Delight
as ‘vile’, ‘sugary’ and ‘over-processed’,
Martin Paterson (Deputy Director General and Director of Communications
for the FDF) retaliated by saying that ‘No one food is bad. Balance
is the key and demonising individual products which are marketed as
snacks or treats may be unhelpful to both parents and children.’
‘Fat-tax’ [85]
When Demos, a UK think-tank, proposed that foods with a high fat and
sugar content, and in particular processed and fast-foods, should
be taxed to subsidise healthier foods (such as fruit and vegetables),
Martin Paterson of the FDF again retaliated in defence of the food
processing industry, arguing that:
‘A so-called ‘fat tax’ would hit lower income families,
be patronising to consumers, and be a tax on choice.’
A tax on unhealthy food has been likened to the tax used to discourage
smoking and drinking. Demos also argues that the tax would encourage
low-income families to choose healthier options.
Premium labels [86]
When a Which? Report criticised the quality of supermarkets’
premium own label ranges, saying that the extra price paid for these
ranges does not guarantee better tasting food, the FDF again stepped
in, arguing that:
‘Consumers aren’t fools. They are very savvy and if a shopper
feels they are being had, they won’t buy that product again.’
Salt in food 87]
The daily requirement for salt is only about 5g a day, yet the majority
of people in the UK eat twice as much. Too much salt is bad for the
body and the sodium in salt has been implicated in causing high blood
pressure, which is linked to coronary heart disease and strokes. Excessive
salt intake is also linked to osteoporosis and stomach cancer. Recently,
the pressure group Consensus Action on Salt and Health, a group of
doctors and chefs, called for food manufacturers to reduce drastically
the amount of ‘hidden’ salt in our foods.
Salt is used as a preservative and flavour-enhancer
in adult and children’s food alike. One pack of Dairylea Lunchables
contains 3g salt. A 205g tin of Tesco Spaghetti letters contains 2.5g
salt. A chicken and mushroom Pot Noodle contains 4g salt. Ready-meals
can contain up to 7g of salt.
Once again, the FDF stepped in (this time Jackie Dowthwaite),
defending the industry’s decision to use high amounts of salt
in their food:
‘Do you think consumers would be fooled into thinking cheap
meat was a prime cut just by adding a bit of salt?’
Children’s foods [88]
A report carried out by Organix, a baby food company, found that ¾
of children’s foods surveyed contained artificial flavourings
or flavour enhancers, such as monosodium glutamate, which are banned
for use in baby food. 1/3 of foods contained colourings, including
dyes banned in Scandinavia and America. Despite this startling revelation,
the FDF characteristically replied that:
‘It is scaremongering nonsense to suggest that
children’s food is not subject to strict regulation. All food
in the UK has to be safe. That’s the law’.
Professor Aggett of the FDF, who has had personal interests with SMA
Nutrition, Kelloggs, Nestlé, Unilever and many other food companies,
is also Deputy-Chair of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in
Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). He has been a member
of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA)
(see ‘Professor Aggett’ in the ‘Influence/Lobbying’
section).
Breakfast bars [89]
Breakfast cereal bars, the fastest growing category of breakfast products,
are designed for people who do not have time for breakfast and are
marketed as lunch-box fillers for children. Many of these products
are loaded with fat, contain more sugar than chocolate and could not
be approved for healthy eating. The report by the Food Commission,
which tested 18 of the breakfast bars including Frosties, Coco Pops
and Trackers, says it would never recommend them due to their poor
nutritional content. They added, ‘Breakfast substitutes should
offer the healthiest alternative not a worse option.’ The Commission
are concerned that the bars are a particular danger to teeth, encouraging
maximum damage.
Amazingly, the Food and Drink Federation disputed the
suggestion that cereal bars were not nutritious. On their ‘Foodfitness’
website, the FDF tells people interested in a healthy lifestyle that:
‘Snacks are also a useful source of carbohydrates and other
nutrients ...But remember to check out food labels to keep track of
the fat content.’[90]
The ‘Foodfitness’ website offers no actual guidelines
on ‘fat content’, making the above advice almost useless.
4) Greenwashing the ‘food miles’ argument.
One of many concerns raised by the current system of
‘free trade’ in agriculture is the unnecessary amount of
miles that food travels. See for example, the Green Party publication
‘The Great Food Swap’ and the SUSTAIN publication ‘
Eating Oil’ Besides the general argument that transport increases
energy consumption, there is a serious concern that trade related
air freight is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions,
which cause climate change. There are also serious concerns about
the social impact of farmers from around the world being played off
against each other for the lowest price and the effects this has on
labour rights and wages, let alone the environmental damage of growing
monocultures of crops for export.
In a recent press release,[91] the FDF claimed that
concern about ‘food miles’ is a red herring, and that in
terms of energy consumption, domestic refrigeration and cooking is
far more energy intensive. The FDF also said that consumers would
not support any moves to restrict the year-round availability of seasonal
fruit and vegetables, even though imports must travel thousands of
miles.
The FDF published this claim in their ‘blueprint
for sustainability’, prepared for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg. They claim that the amount of energy
used in transporting food and drink to shops from farms and factories
was relatively small, and that the manufacture of food and drink accounted
for more than 13 times as much energy. And domestic refrigeration
and cooking used more than eight times as much. This of course entirely
misses the point.
In what could be seen as a retort to food purists who
criticise ‘ready meals’, the FDF also said it made environmental
sense to do as much food preparation as possible in factories since
industrial-scale cooking equipment was more energy efficient than
the domestic equivalent. As the FDF is a trade association representing
food processor’s interests, it was very likely to come up with
this argument.
5) Corrupting Organic standards
The Organic Food Manufacturers Liaison Group represents
over 50 food manufacturers. It was set up in 2001 to ‘ensure
high quality standards’ as well as support the future development
of new certification standards, based on consumer needs. One assumes
this means the additives, preservatives and colourings that are so
much a part of processed food manufacturing, though not part of most
people’s vision of organic foods as healthy and chemical-free.
In a press statement, Sylvia Jay re-affirmed this differing
vision for organic food between many small producers and the industry,
who have spotted an emerging and fast growing market. ‘Organic
food is no longer just box schemes and health food shops. It is now
a mainstream, global market’. In the UK, the total organic food
market is now estimated to be worth in excess of £800 million
an increase of 278% since 1996. If current growth rates are maintained
the market will reach £1billon by 2002 and more than 5% of the
grocery market by 2005-6. Tesco and Sainsbury’s have over 600
lines of organic produce in major stores.[92] Its not surprising that
the food manufacturing industry see the co-option of the organic market
as a key market.
6) Dictating the research agenda
The food processing and manufacturing sector developed
out of a recognition that the demand for food is fairly inelastic
i.e. there is only so much food we can eat, however cheap it is. However,
through innovation and technological ‘advances’ we can add
value to food, thus always ensuring there are new products and new
demand. Over the years, such innovation has taken the form of preservatives,
enzymes, additives, flavourings, colourings, new processing techniques
and ready meals. There have also been staggering advances in the processing
of food, ensuring that it is ever more efficient, that the supply
of raw materials is constant and the price of raw materials is lower
- to this end GM technology appeals to the food processors as it creates
oversupply. Furthermore, the promise of GM technology with processing
traits, such as bread wheat with higher gluten levels so that gluten
does not need to be added in the baking stage, seems very appealing
to the industry.
Evidently, the industry invests heavily in research
and development, however, it makes more financial sense to get the
government to fund research. Representatives of the FDF sit, and have
sat on the board of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council, as well as the government Foresight committees, that are
developing new visions for food technology on behalf of the government
and at the Rothampsted research institute, that focuses on agronomic
research, including biotechnology. Other associates of the FDF work
with independent research institutes, such as the Institute of Food
Research and the Institute of Food Science and Technology that are
beneficiaries of government funding (See section on ‘Influence
and Lobbying’).
With government funding so focused on research useful
for industry, this narrows the amount available for independent research,
for exampleon the health risks of new food technologies. This, of
course, can only be viewed as a good thing by the industry.
7) Shamelessly defending industry
representation on government committees
In April 1998, Neville Craddock of the FDF (see above)
gave evidence to the UK government’s Health and Safety Executive
(HSE). The HSE’s overall purpose is to ‘to ensure that risks
to people’s health and safety from work activities are properly
controlled’. This particular select committee also examined the
process by which government committees, such as the Food Advisory
Committee (FAC), takes advice from industry sources. Craddock felt
that he, being someone who represented industry whilst sitting on
government committees, was in a ‘strong and relevant position
to offer comments to the Committee’s Inquiry, with particular
reference to the role and position of so-called ‘Industry Representatives’
on Advisory Committees.’[93]
The text of his memorandum contains the following quotes[94]:
‘1. Advice to Ministers must continue to be of the highest possible
calibre, beyond question and be seen to be independent of any vested
interests.
2. The balance and source of Committee membership must
be objectively addressed. Industry employees may not be unique in
having direct or indirect financial interests in matters under discussion.
[I.e. it’s OK for committee members to be industry-employees,
since other committee members, although not industry employees, may
still have financial interests such as shares in relevant industries.
This is not comforting.]
3. The Terms of Reference of the FAC [Food Advisory
Committee], in particular, can best and, perhaps, only be met by having
amongst its membership, individuals with relevant, practical, first-hand
experience [i.e. industry-employees] in appropriate areas, in order
to ensure the widest possible basis for advice to Ministers.
For corporate lobby groups, having a representative
on a government advisory committee, is exactly where they can wield
their power best. Advisory committees are where legislation and regulation
is debated and proposed. This is where their behaviour could be restricted
and potentially, their profits curtailed.
For all the claims of ‘independence from any vested
interests’, lobbyists can’t help but work in the interests
of their corporate members, since they are paid to represent them.
They are hardly likely to call for tough when this is going to penalise
their members, with the exception, of course, of cases in which regulation
can be made to work for their interests, for example by forcing smaller
producers out of the market.
